Disposed

Sri H Puttaraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2024WP/17415/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order directing fresh phodi and durasthi of survey numbers in Lakshmisagara village. The court held the boundary between the parties must be fixed per the 1980 and 2010 sale deeds, with Vajarahalli main road as the common boundary.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified; respondents 4 and 5 to conduct phodi and durasthi considering sale deeds dated 10.07.1980 and 28.08.2010, within four months.

Sri H Puttaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50502 WP No. 17415 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.17415 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI H. PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶9

SRI H. MELEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶10

SRI H. HOMBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶11

SRI H. HANUMANTHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 ARE S/O SRI HANUMANTHAIAH AND THEY ARE RESIDING AT VAJARAHALLI VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT-562 109.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

¶18

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶19

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BANGALORE DIVISION BANGALORE-560 001.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:50502 WP No. 17415 of 2024

¶22

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159.

¶23

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS RAMANAGARA TALUK

¶24

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159.

¶25

THE THASILDAR

¶26

RAMANAGARA TALUK-562 159.

¶27

M/S. NEELANCHAL DWELLINGS LLP. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP REGISTERED UNDER THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008, HAVING ITS REGISTRERED OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, SALARPURIA WINDSOR, NO.3, ULSOOR ROAD BENGALURU-560 042 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORITY SIGNATORY MR. ASHWIN SANCHETI.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SMT. RADHA B.P., AGA FOR R.1 TO R.5; SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI H.N. NARENDRA DEV, ADVOCATE FOR R.6.)

¶30

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.05.2024 PASSED IN ¸ÀASÉå:¥Áæ¨sÀÆdA¤.j«d£ï(gÁ.£À)26/2023-24 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, ETC.

¶31

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50502 WP No. 17415 of 2024

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Aggrieved by the order dated 09.05.2024 bearing ¸ÀASÉå:¥Áæ¨sÀÆdA¤.j«d£ï(gÁ.£À)26/2023-24 passed by

¶36

respondent no.2 (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition) whereby respondent no.2 has directed respondent nos.4 and 5 to conduct fresh phodi and durasthi in respect of Survey Nos.1/1 and 1/2 of Lakshmisagara village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, by taking into consideration the relevant sale deeds and the actual possession of the parties concerned, respondent nos.4 to 7 therein have preferred this writ petition.

¶37

The case of the petitioners is that one M.Gundappa owned 5 acres 23 guntas of land (excluding 'B' kharab) in Survey No.1 of Lakshmisagara village. He sold 4 acres 26 guntas of land in favour of one Nalina by a sale deed dated 10.07.1980. Respondent no.6 has now become the owner of the said 4 acres 26 guntas of land. Thereafter, the said M.Gundappa sold remaining 37 guntas of land in favour of

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50502 WP No. 17415 of 2024

¶39

the petitioners herein by a sale deed dated 28.08.2010.

¶40

At their request, phodi and durasthi of the lands were

¶41

done in the year 2017 and 4 acres 26 guntas of land, which was sold in favour of Nalina was given a separate number as Survey No.1/1 and 37 guntas of land sold in favour of the petitioners herein was given as Survey No.1/2. Thereafter, on the ground that there has been

¶42

some dispute as to the common boundary between the properties of the petitioners and respondent no.6, as they are adjoining properties, at the request of respondent no.6

¶43

herein, the impugned order came to be passed. The petitioners contend that a proper order has been passed in the year 2017 taking into consideration the relevant sale deeds and the actual possession of the parties concerned and there is no reason why the impugned order had to be passed setting aside the earlier order.

¶44

Per contra, respondent no.6 contends that the

¶45

akarband relating to the property does not demarcate the boundaries as mentioned in the relevant sale deeds and

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50502 WP No. 17415 of 2024

¶47

for that reason submits that the order of 2017 has been rightly set aside by respondent no.2 and the impugned order has been passed and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶48

Respondent no.6 however does not dispute the fact that M.Gundappa was the original owner of the entire 5 acres 23 guntas of land, of which 4 acres 26 guntas of land was sold to one Nalina for which respondent no.6 has now become the owner of the property and that the remaining 37 guntas of land has been sold in favour of the petitioners herein by M.Gundappa himself subsequently.

¶49

Based on the aforementioned contentions of the

¶50

parties, it is clear that M.Gundappa was the owner of 5 acres 23 guntas of land, of which he sold 4 acres 26 guntas in favour of one Nalina by a registered sale deed dated 10.07.1980 and thereafter the remaining 37 guntas of land has been sold in favour of the petitioners herein on

¶51

28.08.2010 by the said M.Gundappa.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:50502 WP No. 17415 of 2024

¶54

Thus, while conducting phodi and durasthi and fixing the boundaries between the parties, first the authorities concerned have to verify the sale deed executed in favour of Nalina, fix the boundaries as per the schedule in the sale deed and give it a separate survey number and thereafter, verify the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners herein, fix the boundaries as per the schedule in the sale deed and thereafter give it a separate survey number. It is needless to state that while doing so, the authorities concerned cannot go beyond 5 acres 23 guntas of land which was owned by M.Gundappa. Thus, the sale deed dated 10.07.1980 wherein 4 acres 26 guntas of land was sold in favour of Nalina and the sale deed dated 28.08.2010 wherein the remaining property of 37 guntas was sold in favour of the petitioners herein becomes relevant. Admittedly, petitioners' property is situated towards the south of the property of respondent no.6 (property sold in favour of Nalina). The schedule of property in the sale deed dated 10.07.1980 shows the southern boundary of the property to be Vajarahalli main

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:50502 WP No. 17415 of 2024

¶57

road. The schedule of property in the sale deed dated 28.08.2010 shows the northern boundary to be Vajarahalli main road. Thus, the boundary needs to be fixed taking Vajarahalli main road as the common boundary between the property of the petitioners and respondent no.6. As the same has not been done as per the order of the year 2017 in respect of phodi and durasthi work, and as per the present akarband, the boundary is shown differently, the present impugned order has been passed. However, it is seen that the present impugned order does not clarify how

¶58

the phodi and durasthi requires to be done. It merely directs respondent nos.4 and 5 to verify the sale deeds and the actual physical possession of the parties concerned and determine the boundary. Hence, it is essential to direct the authorities concerned to consider the sale deed executed in favour of Nalina which is dated 10.07.1980 and the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners herein which is dated 28.08.2010, while determining the common boundary. To that extent, the

¶59

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:50502 WP No. 17415 of 2024

¶60

impugned order requires to be modified. Hence, the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

Respondent nos.4 and 5 are hereby directed to consider the sale deeds dated 10.07.1980 and 28.08.2010

¶63

as aforementioned while determining the boundary between the properties of the petitioners and respondent no.6 and conduct the necessary phodi and durasthi. The same shall be completed as expeditiously as possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶64

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶65

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶66

hkh.

Sri H Puttaraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H Puttaraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritnand Balved Education Foundation Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Hanumantharayappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Lalitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sr T Ramanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhaskar R. Vs State of Karnataka